TVTropes Now available in the app store!
Open

Follow TV Tropes

Following

Marvel Cinematic Universe

Go To

Welcome to the main discussion thread for the Marvel Cinematic Universe! This pinned post is here to establish some basic guidelines. All of the Media Forum rules still apply.

  • This thread is for talking about the live-action films, TV shows, animated works, and related content that use the Marvel brand, currently owned by Disney.
  • While mild digressions are okay, discussion of the comic books should go in this thread. Extended digressions may be thumped as off-topic.
  • Spoilers for new releases should not be discussed without spoiler tagging for at least two weeks. Rather, each title should have a dedicated thread where that sort of conversation is held. We can mention new releases in a general sense, but please be courteous to people who don't want to be spoiled.

If you're posting tagged spoilers, make sure that the film or series is clearly identified outside the spoiler tagging. People need to know what will be spoiled before they choose to read the post.

    Original post 
Since Thor and now Captain America came out this year, I wanted to get what Tropers thought of the concept and execution of the Marvel Cinematic Universe in general. Personally I love the idea and wonder why this idea hasn't been seriously tried before. It sorta seems to me like the DCAU in movie form (And well, ummm, with Marvel), and really 'gets' the comic book feel of a shared universe while not being completely alienating.

Edited by Mrph1 on Jul 29th 2024 at 3:09:00 PM

GendoIkari Since: Aug, 2010
#107201: Aug 21st 2019 at 1:35:45 AM

Of course there must be more behind but what I see is:

  • Sony makes a mess of the Spider-Man live-action franchise, first with the third Raimi film, then with the not-so-amazing reboot.
  • Deal with Marvel/Disney to let them use Spidey, Tom Holland is cast. Thanks to Marvel Studios and his integration in the MCU, Spidey is taken out of the hole Sony made him fall into and is very successful again.
  • Sony get lucky with Venom, and they do it great with Spider-Verse - which, however and unfortunately, is not as successful at the box office as the competing Disney and Pixar movies. Yet, they are again confident their grand plans for Spider-Man that fell through a few years ago, could now be made with the Holland version of the character.
  • Meantime, Disney think they deserve a bigger share since Sony is riding on the coattails of the job they did with Spidey, while they get the crumbs in comparison.
  • Result: Sony refuse any changes of the deal and both parties back out. Sony now hope to ride on a success that's not entirely their making.

I hope the parties eventually reach a middle ground.

Is someone here seriously convinced there's some dastardly plot by Disney to turn fans against Sony and use them as leverage? The backlash would have happened in any case.

Finally, for whoever bemoans the influence of Tony Stark in the first two Holland movies: FFH was about accepting Tony's legacy (refusing it is one of the reasons for trouble later in the movie), true, but also about rising above his shadow, and it all looked set for the third movie for Peter to become more of an hero on his own than "the next Iron Man".

Edited by GendoIkari on Aug 21st 2019 at 10:37:10 AM

Deadbeatloser22 from Disappeared by Space Magic (Great Old One) Relationship Status: Tsundere'ing
#107202: Aug 21st 2019 at 1:35:59 AM

Hang on, where is this "Disney is weaponizing fanrage" coming from? Because so far all the stuff I've seen has been from Sony going "blame them not us".

"Yup. That tasted purple."
Zeromaeus Since: May, 2010
#107203: Aug 21st 2019 at 1:46:03 AM

I'm not pretending Disney as a whole comes clean in any endeavor. It just seems disingenuous to say "Disney corporation; Disney bad" when the other side is just as corporate.

alliterator Since: Jan, 2001
#107204: Aug 21st 2019 at 1:47:19 AM

Oh give me a break. Disney are one of the kings of exploiting contracts and screwing over other people.
And Amy Pascal had to resign from Sony due to racist emails she wrote about Barack Obama. Both Disney and Sony are not nice, clean companies where nothing ever bad happens. That wasn't my point.

My point is and was always that Disney made a deal with Sony that was extremely favorable to Sony and now Disney wanted to change the deal, since they had just made a film that outgrossed every other Sony film. And Sony didn't want that, because the original deal was, again, extremely favorable to them.

The deal they inked was exactly what they wanted.
No, it wasn't. I guarantee you that they wanted more profits than 5%, they just agreed to it because of other factors. Hell, the ideal option for Disney would have been just to buy the rights to Spider-Man outright, but Sony would never do that because it's their biggest cash cow.

Again, the previous deal also includes unlimited use of the character in any team up movie, with Sony not even getting a single dollar for those.
I mean, Disney also paid Sony $175 million dollars for the merchandising rights to Spider-Man, so it's not like Sony is getting nothing except what the movies make.

Edited by alliterator on Aug 21st 2019 at 1:47:46 AM

qwigly Since: Mar, 2016
#107205: Aug 21st 2019 at 2:17:42 AM

And Amy Pascal had to resign from Sony due to racist emails she wrote about Barack Obama. Both Disney and Sony are not nice, clean companies where nothing ever bad happens. That wasn't my point.

I'm sorry, when did Amy Pacsal sign a contract with Barack Obama? Oh, she didn't? So that was completely goddamn irrelevant in a discussion of contracts, and just you trying to use whataboutism to deflect? Good to know.

My point is and was always that Disney made a deal with Sony that was extremely favorable to Sony and now Disney wanted to change the deal, since they had just made a film that outgrossed every other Sony film. And Sony didn't want that, because the original deal was, again, extremely favorable to them.

No, the deal wasn't favorable to Sony. You can tell because the deal was made when Sony was over a barrel, not only coming off TASM 2, but also coming off of the targeted email attack by North Korea. Disney are not goddamn pixies going around just signing dels to favor others out of the goodness of their hearts.

The solo Spider-man movies were always the cost for Marvel of doing business in getting Spider-Man, 100% free and 100% unrestricted, in any team up movie Marvel wanted to make. T He Spider-man movies was where Sony was getting its money on the deal. Civil War and all subsequent Avengers movies, as well as merchandising, was where Disney was getting its money.

The deal was fair to both. Both of them agreed to it, at a point when the power dynamic involved was WILDLY more in favor of Disney than it is presently. Disney now want more, because they are being greedy. They are tired of paying even that cost of business, and think that they should get the team up movies AND the solo movies, and now , Sony's other movies will be what Sony gets money from.

No, it wasn't. I guarantee you that they wanted more profits than 5%, they just agreed to it because of other factors.
Yeah, no shit, those other factors, i.e. getting to use Spider-Man in a team up movie, are where Disney is seeing all of ITS benefits from the deal. You can't just pretend that those other factors are somehow unrelated to this deal.

Hang on, where is this "Disney is weaponizing fanrage" coming from? Because so far all the stuff I've seen has been from Sony going "blame them not us".
Reports indicate that Disney are the ones who leaked the news.

Edited by qwigly on Aug 21st 2019 at 2:23:10 AM

alliterator Since: Jan, 2001
#107206: Aug 21st 2019 at 2:22:56 AM

No, the deal wasn't favorable to Sony.
Yes, it damn well was. Marvel Studios making the film and only seeing 5% of the profits is extremely favorable to Sony. Trying to deny this is like trying to deny that the moon exists.

I'm sorry, when did Amy Pacsal sign a contract with Barack Obama? Oh, she didn't? So that was completely goddamn irrelevant in a discussion of contracts, and just you trying to use whataboutism to deflect?
In fairness, you used whataboutism first, by saying that since Disney had shafted others using contracts, that they were definitely trying to shaft Sony. Despite the fact that there is zero evidence of that.

But sure, go right ahead and tell me how Sony is completely and utterly blameless and all the blame lies with eeeevil Disney.

Edited by alliterator on Aug 21st 2019 at 2:25:25 AM

qwigly Since: Mar, 2016
#107207: Aug 21st 2019 at 2:25:05 AM

And how much money did Sony see for Infinity War and Endgame?

Stop pretending those teamup movies dont exist.

In fairness, you used whataboutism first, by saying that since Disney had shafted others using contracts, that they were definitely trying to shaft Sony. Despite the fact that there is zero evidence of that.

Do you seriously not understand the difference between whataboutism and precedent?

Precedent is saying "Disney have written and relied on plenty of shady contracts in the past, thetefore there is no way they would ever sign a deal that was unfair against them".

Your thing is "Amy Pascal is racist, therefore Sony managed to trick poor old Disney out of all its money."

Edited by qwigly on Aug 21st 2019 at 2:30:05 AM

Deadbeatloser22 from Disappeared by Space Magic (Great Old One) Relationship Status: Tsundere'ing
#107208: Aug 21st 2019 at 2:25:16 AM

Reports indicate that Disney are the ones who leaked the news.

Show us.

"Yup. That tasted purple."
alliterator Since: Jan, 2001
#107209: Aug 21st 2019 at 2:28:32 AM

And how much money did Sony see for Infinity War and Endgame?

Stop pretending those teamup movies dont exist.

I'm sorry, are you saying that the success of those movies was entirely due to Spider-Man appearing in them? Even though he was, uh, dead for the majority of Endgame and appeared for, at most, five minutes?

Do you seriously not understand the difference between whataboutism and precedent?
Disney using their contract with Robin Williams to advertise Aladdin is nothing at all like the contract they made with Sony. Merely saying "They did a bad thing with a contract before" doesn't equal them doing anything similar now.

And if you believe Sony is squeaky clean and has never shafted anyone, boy, have I got some bad news for you.

Edited by alliterator on Aug 21st 2019 at 2:32:38 AM

qwigly Since: Mar, 2016
#107210: Aug 21st 2019 at 2:35:00 AM

Again, that would be relevant if people were saying that the deal as it existed was horribly unfair to Sony. Too bad no-one said that.

I'm saying that both Sony and Disney are equally ruthless, manipulative, and underhanded. Which is how you can tell the deal was 100% fair, cause neither side would ever cede a single thing more than they had to.

Edited by qwigly on Aug 21st 2019 at 2:36:06 AM

slimcoder The Head of the Hydra Since: May, 2013
The Head of the Hydra
#107211: Aug 21st 2019 at 2:44:26 AM

You forget things like pragmatism & long-term planning.

"I am Alpharius. This is a lie."
alliterator Since: Jan, 2001
#107212: Aug 21st 2019 at 2:47:55 AM

I'm saying that both Sony and Disney are equally ruthless, manipulative, and underhanded. Which is how you can tell the deal was 100% fair, cause neither side would ever cede a single thing more than they had to.
Saying "both sides are ruthless, therefore the deal was fair" is about the silliest thing I can ever think of. One doesn't indicate the other. Disney can be ruthless, but agree to an unfair contract because of certain stipulations (i.e. they don't actually own the rights to Spider-Man) and Sony can be ruthless and agree to a contract that favors them because, fuck yeah, it favors them! Sure, they don't want to part with any money, but this way, Marvel shoulders the work and they still get a lot of the profit! Win win!

But, and here's where things are finally going pear-shaped, the deal was never going to last forever. Disney was never going to continue to accept 5% forever and Sony was never going to continue to let Disney take some of the profits that they want all of. Which is why Sony almost immediately began making their "Sony's Marvel Universe" franchise. Disney, on the other hand, waited until they made Sony a billion-dollar movie before trying to renegotiate the contract — and sure, they came out with an aggressive first move, but guess what? That's what these huge corporations do.

Saying "Disney should have kept the same deal going" is ignoring the simple fact that neither Sony nor Disney wanted to keep the same deal going.

qwigly Since: Mar, 2016
#107213: Aug 21st 2019 at 2:56:36 AM

You forget things like pragmatism & long-term planning.
Long term plans would have been IN the contract. Is Disneys plan was to offer low stakes initially, then grab a bigger chunk for later films, they would have put that in the agreement, not just hope super hard Sony would readily agree to a much worse deal.

Pragmatism here is just wanting Sony to give in order to get Spider-Man in The Avengers. Which they got. Now they want more.

[up]Sony absolutely wanted to keep the deal going. Them making other movies had absolutely nothing to do with the deal.

Edited by qwigly on Aug 21st 2019 at 3:15:03 AM

alliterator Since: Jan, 2001
#107214: Aug 21st 2019 at 3:07:18 AM

You are saying things with absolutely no evidence.

qwigly Since: Mar, 2016
#107215: Aug 21st 2019 at 3:17:29 AM

So you believe Sony had Bob Igers wife hostage, and thats why Disney agreed to a bad deal? You cannot pretend them wanting Spider-Man for team up movies doesnt exist, that is what Sony gave them to get Disney to agree.

jakobitis Doctor of Doctorates from Somewhere, somewhen Since: Jan, 2015 Relationship Status: I'd need a PowerPoint presentation
Doctor of Doctorates
#107216: Aug 21st 2019 at 3:21:20 AM

They did a deal that suited them both then. It doesn't suit either of them as well any more. Hence the current situation. But I am reasonably sure another deal will eventually be ground out.

"These 'no-nonsense' solutions of yours just don't hold water in a complex world of jet-powered apes and time travel."
slimcoder The Head of the Hydra Since: May, 2013
The Head of the Hydra
#107217: Aug 21st 2019 at 3:21:22 AM

Okay this is just nonsense at this point.

"I am Alpharius. This is a lie."
alliterator Since: Jan, 2001
#107218: Aug 21st 2019 at 3:22:55 AM

[up][up][up] Fallacy, fallacy, which fallacy did you use...oh look the Straw Man fallacy!

Edited by alliterator on Aug 21st 2019 at 3:24:11 AM

TargetmasterJoe from Velocitron Since: May, 2013 Relationship Status: I like big bots and I can not lie
#107219: Aug 21st 2019 at 3:25:21 AM

(Sees the great qwigly and alliterator debate)

(Rubs his temple)

Guys, I'm hurting as much as you guys are, but alliterator is right, qwigly. You are making claims that sound less than believable without presenting evidence. Do you have a source for whatever you're saying?

Or am I going to have to get the mods involved?

qwigly Since: Mar, 2016
#107220: Aug 21st 2019 at 3:26:34 AM

[up][up][up][up]Seems like it suits both of them perfectly. Disney made $5 billion off of two movies using Spider-Man, Sony got a billion dollar movie out of it. It only doesnt suit Disney cause they want more.

[up][up]you are continuing to claim Sony somehow forced Disney to agree to a deal that was hugely unfavorable to them. The situation i proposed was the only situation that would allow Sony to do this. What exactly is the situation you have that forced Disney to do what Sony said?

[up]you seriously need evidence that Disney agreed to the initial deal?

Edited by qwigly on Aug 21st 2019 at 1:22:21 AM

TargetmasterJoe from Velocitron Since: May, 2013 Relationship Status: I like big bots and I can not lie
#107221: Aug 21st 2019 at 3:36:16 AM

[up] You know what? If it means you'll present a source, then yes, we all need evidence that Disney agreed to the initial deal.

Because I thought it was Disney who came up with the deal.

Gah, this stupid "no more Spidey in the MCU" debacle is tearing us apart. We are now brothers pitted against brothers. How much longer until babies start having babies?

Hylarn (Don’t ask)
#107222: Aug 21st 2019 at 3:37:07 AM

Something I'd note is that Disney's current 5% is actually a lot larger than it sounds. It's off gross, not net, which means it's about 15% of the expected profit, which is actually fairly sizable for someone who's not really helping make the movies (plus I think Disney gets all the merch sales as well?)

...Though I don't think this is entirely a money thing. It sound like Disney is trying mainly to get control over Sony's spider pictures more than anything else. But it's this control that Sony seems to be the most irritated by

I'm going to say that I won't be surprised if Sony ends up walking. They've already got a successful start to a franchise, and I'm not sure what else Disney has to offer?

TargetmasterJoe from Velocitron Since: May, 2013 Relationship Status: I like big bots and I can not lie
#107223: Aug 21st 2019 at 3:47:45 AM

They've already got a successful start to a franchise, and I'm not sure what else Disney has to offer?

Bruh, you serious?

Disney's offering to have Spider-Man interacting with other Marvel superheroes, which is something everyone's been wanting since the MCU got big?

Plus, the last time Sony tried to start their own big name superhero movie universe, it got us The Amazing Spider-Man 2, which has been notorious for being less substance and more "let's see how many sequels and spin-offs we can start building up towards because we know people will be stupid enough to watch and pay money for sequels and spinoffs, regardless of quality."

And while Venom made back its money and then some, it was not a critical success, which MCU movies turn out to be.

Edited by TargetmasterJoe on Aug 21st 2019 at 6:55:27 AM

qwigly Since: Mar, 2016
#107224: Aug 21st 2019 at 3:53:57 AM

[up][up][up]turns out I was incorrect Sony sctually made the deal BETTER for Disney than the initial rumors surrounding it.

https://variety.com/2015/film/news/details-spider-man-appear-in-sony-and-marvel-movies-1201429039/

[up]no, last time Sony tried to start a franchise was probably Jumanji.

TargetmasterJoe from Velocitron Since: May, 2013 Relationship Status: I like big bots and I can not lie

Total posts: 186,763
Top